Posts Tagged: "INTA"

Restrictions on the use of branding symbols are a growing and serious threat to IP rights, according to a panel of trademark specialists speaking at the online INTA Annual Meeting this week, which has been combined this year with the Association’s Leadership Meeting and is being held virtually. About 3,340 people from 110 countries are registered to attend. The moderator of the panel, former INTA President Ronald van Tuijl of JT International S.A., said there is “a very strong case against brand restrictions” arguing that: “In a market where all products look alike, the products become commoditized. Premium brands lose market share or are even delisted. That results in less consumer choice ultimately.”

The USPTO recently published a Final Rule setting new fees for trademark filings and TTAB proceedings, which will be effective January 2, 2021. The last time trademark fees were adjusted was about three years ago. The increases range from modest to fairly substantial. To file an application using the TEAS Plus option, the fee has increased from $225 per class to $250 per class, and the processing fee for failing to meet the TEAS Plus requirements has been reduced from $125 per class to $100 per class. However, the fee for TEAS Standard per class has jumped $75, from $275 to $350, which many trademark owners who commented found unreasonable.

Sometimes a dog toy is just a dog toy. Maybe that’s how Sigmund Freud would have put it; certainly, that’s the message from our client, the International Trademark Association (INTA), to the U.S. Supreme Court. At issue is a Ninth Circuit decision that extends First Amendment protection to ordinary commercial goods like dog toys, at the expense of trademark rights. INTA, Jack Daniel’s competitors, alcohol beverage industry associations, and other trademark advocates this week asked SCOTUS to step in and reverse.

A case now pending before the Ninth Circuit, LTTB LLC v. Redbubble, Inc., Docket No. 19-16464, has the potential to clarify the controversial doctrine of aesthetic functionality. Aesthetic functionality has puzzled courts for decades. Particularly before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its modern guidance on functionality in Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982); TrafFix Devices v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 26 (2001), and Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (2d Cir. 2009), courts struggled with how to apply the aesthetic functionality doctrine and issued opinions that, in some instances, muddied the already murky aesthetic functionality waters. Perhaps the most notorious aesthetic functionality case is International Order of Job’s Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co., 633 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1980), a case that many observers believed to be abrogated by subsequent Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit opinions but that has recently continued to wreak havoc on trademark law.

On November 27, briefing concluded at the Supreme Court with the filing of Fossil’s respondent’s brief in Romag Fasteners, Inc., v. Fossil, Inc., et al. The final briefing sets the stage for the Court to hear the case on January 14, 2020. The Court will hopefully resolve a current Circuit split on the availability of disgorgement of profits as damages for trademark infringement. Currently, the First, Second, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and D.C. Circuits all require willful infringement before allowing disgorgement of an infringer’s profits (the First Circuit requires willfulness if the parties are not direct competitors and there is also some disagreement on where the Eighth Circuit falls on the issue). The Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits all allow for disgorgement of profits without willful infringement. There has been a Circuit split for some time on this issue and the Supreme Court previously denied certiorari on similar cases but the Court is now set to resolve the split.

The Intellectual Property Owners Association and four other associations have filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court in the case of Romag Fasteners v. Fossil, Inc., Fossil Stores, I. Inc., Macy’s Inc, and Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. The case will examine whether lower courts have discretion under the Lanham Act with respect to how to award damages in trademark infringement cases, or whether courts are required to establish that the infringement was willful before awarding profits. While the American Bar Association (ABA), the International Trademark Association (INTA), the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) support adopting a more flexible approach that would not make willfulness a prerequisite to recover profits, IPO argues that the plain language of the statute necessitates such a requirement.

A few years ago, internet surveys in intellectual property (IP) litigation were novelties—but not anymore. In fact, the internet survey has more than come of age, it has become the preferred methodology for many types of IP litigation-related surveys—especially trademark-related matters. The biggest reason for the rise of the internet survey is the demise of the other more established conventional methodologies. At the same time, the internet continues to add new technological features that enhance its ability to reach populations and probe relevant target markets.

This March, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorarito take up Peter v. Nantkwest Inc., on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case will ask the nation’s highest court to determine whether the phrase “[a]ll expenses of the proceeding” found in 35 U.S.C. § 145, which governs appeals to district court of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office decisions to deny the issue of a patent grant, encompasses personnel expenses incurred by the USPTO, including attorneys’ fees, when its employees defend the agency against Section 145 litigation. On July 22, a series of intellectual property and law associations filed amicusbriefs in the case by and large supporting the position of Nantkwest. This includes the American Bar Association, which argued that the USPTO’s interpretation of the statute would “hamper the equal access to justice and chill the assertion of meritorious claims.” Other Nantkwest amici argued that the government has had the statutory authority to collect ‘expenses of the proceeding’ in patent cases since 1839 but for the 174 years prior to the case against Nantkwest, the USPTO has declined to seek attorney’s fees.

At a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet this morning, titled Counterfeits and Cluttering: Emerging Threats to the Integrity of the Trademark System and the Impact on American Consumers and Businesses, members of Congress expressed concern over the steep rise in trademark applications by Chinese filers, many of which have been found to be fraudulent. The problem has been exacerbated by poor enforcement on the part of platforms like Amazon, eBay, and Walmart; by the limited authority of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to revoke registrations once issued; and by incentives offered by the Chinese government in the form of subsidies to Chinese applicants for U.S. trademarks, said panelists.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the California-based nonprofit public-benefit organization with authority over the global Internet’s system of unique identifiers, e.g. IP addresses and domain names, known as generic top-level domains (gTLDs). ICANN’s New gTLD Program has seen the addition of more than 1,200 top-level domains to the Internet’s Domain Name System.  Each new gTLD is contractually obligated to provide a set of trademark Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs), including mainly the Trademark Claims Service, Sunrise, and the Uniform Rapid Suspension system, discussed more fully below. From the perspective of brand owners, new gTLDs—like the Internet itself—continue to create both opportunities and challenges for protecting intellectual property and serving consumers in the online marketplace.

Much has been made in the last week or two of the International Trademark Association’s (INTA’s) study, Gen Z Insights: Brands and Counterfeit Products, which surveyed more than 4,500 respondents between the ages of 18 and 23 in 10 countries: Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, and the United States. The study found that Gen Z’s identity is defined by three characteristics: individuality, morality and flexibility: 85% believe that brands should aim to do good in the world, and 81% feel that the brand name is not as important as how the product fits their needs. While 85% have heard of IP rights and 93% have a lot of respect for people’s ideas and creations, 79% said they have purchased counterfeit products in the past year. The two most commonly purchased counterfeit products are apparel and shoes and accessories. The three most credible sources for learning about counterfeiting are brands’ creators or employees, media personalities and social media influencers.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: Chinese state political advisors suggest changes to the country’s copyright law, including stronger punitive measures for infringement; President Donald Trump bans Huawei telecommunications equipment from use on U.S. networks; Korean IP offices get ready to study inter-Korean IP cooperation; Huawei and Samsung reach a conclusion to their worldwide patent litigation; AbbVie okays a generic Humira treatment in 2023; Disney escapes Pirates of the Caribbean copyright suit unscathed; Guns N’ Roses files a trademark suit over a beer; Qualcomm enters into another worldwide patent license for 5G technology; and Procter & Gamble unveils its largest research and development center after $400 million upgrade to Ohio facility.

On April 15, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti, a case the International Trademark Association (INTA) has remarked raises a critical issue for all trademark owners—namely, which trademarks reliably can be expected to obtain registration under the Lanham Act. At the heart of the case, and of the amicus brief we helped file for INTA this week, is whether free speech concerns should trump the statutory bar on registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks. INTA says the First Amendment should win out, and the statutory bar should fall. The category of marks at issue is exemplified by the FUCT apparel mark, owned by Erik Brunetti, to which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied federal registration. After the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that Section 2(a)’s bar on registering immoral or scandalous marks is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech, the U.S. government sought the Supreme Court’s review, and the Court granted certiorari. It must now decide whether the prohibition in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act on the federal registration of “immoral . . . or scandalous” marks like FUCT is invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology was argued last week at the Supreme Court and seeks to solve a circuit split regarding the effects of bankruptcy proceedings on trademark licenses. The case asks the nation’s highest court to determine if the rejection of a license in bankruptcy terminates the licensee’s right to to the trademarks or whether that license rejection only constitutes a breach by the licensor, in which case the licensee can still use the marks. The International Trademark Association (INTA) has dubbed the issue presented as “the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.” Following our in-depth guest report on the oral argument, IPWatchdog asked those following the case to provide their take on the import of the case, the oral argument, and potential implications of the justices’ questioning.

On February 20, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The case presents the question of whether a debtor-licensor’s rejection of an executory trademark license agreement in bankruptcy, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365, results in the agreement’s complete termination, including loss of the licensee’s right to use the licensed trademark. Given that trademarks are the most widely used form of registered intellectual property, and trademark rights often are among a debtor’s key assets, the treatment of the debtor’s licenses of those rights is an issue that arises frequently in the bankruptcy context. For this reason, among others, the issue presented by this case has been hailed by the International Trademark Association (INTA) as “the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.”